Ah, abortion. It’s in the news again. The frustrating thing about the abortion debate is that one side isn’t being forthright about what it wants and what it values. This makes the problem completely intractable because no solution ever works, no middle ground ever emerges, because we’re all just shadowboxing. The pro-life movement is not being truthful–mind you, even to themselves–about their goals and values. And it’s so painfully obvious that I can prove it in just a few paragraphs.
We know that making highly effective contraception available free to any woman who wants it cuts the abortion rate by two thirds. Just think. Two out of three abortions could be prevented. And nobody would have to protest anything because the pro-choice camp would be 100% supportive of the effort. It’s a big fat slice of middle ground that everyone should be able to agree on.
Except we can’t. Pro-lifers aren’t interested. But why? Why would they pass up such low hanging fruit? They could without any opposition–with help, even–prevent two out of three abortions just like that. It makes no sense–that is, until you understand their true motivations.
Giving away free highly effective contraception to any women who wanted it would not only prevent a lot of abortions, but it would also remove the threat of unwanted pregnancies for sexually active women. Pro-lifers do not want this. They want sex (outside of married procreation) to be as risky as possible.
Try it. Ask a pro-lifer if they will help us with the contraception thing. When they decline, ask why. Press them. Eventually they will say something like “actions should have consequences.” And by this they obviously mean: have sex, pay the price. That’s the way they like it, and that’s the way they want to keep it.
So don’t be fooled. They don’t care about “babies” or “life” or any of that other horseshit. What they’re after is policing women’s sexuality and imposing their own puritanical mores on others. They refuse to prevent two thirds of all abortions because doing so might make sex less risky for women. That should tell you everything you need to know.
And just think about how many other things make sense now. Do they protest outside fertility clinics where hundreds and hundreds of human embryos are regularly destroyed? Nope. Never made sense before, but now it does! Fertility clinics aren’t making sex less risky for women. So they don’t care.
Well, that about wraps up the abortion debate. It’s really a women’s sexuality debate. I think the pro-lifers should embrace their true position and be more honest about it. Instead of calling themselves “pro-life,” which they most certainly aren’t, maybe they could rebrand as “anti-slut” or something similar.
Anyway, tune in next time when we talk about why fiscal conservatism is actually just racism! Or, why uncle Jim does not actually care about the top marginal tax rate.